Pentium vs Celeron

[ANMMark]

Over much discussion, it seems that people simply love to hate Celerons, for no valid reason.

So, I thought I would break down the facts of the difference. This is not opinion, these are spec sheets, and common sense. You can go over to Intel and run comparions as well.

The thing that people tend to forget is the a Celeron is based on Pentium technology.

The difference between the two are bus speed and cache size.

Here's the rundown......

Pentium's have larger cache size but only run at half the speed of the cpu. While Celerons are built with half the cache size but run at the full speed of the CPU.

Celerons are cheaper, and there really is not much difference in performance, because of the limits placed on the Pentium chip (running at half speed).

The larger cache of the Pentium however, will however make it seem to run a bit faster because it can store more information that is readily retrievable and reusable.

So basically, if you have a Pentium with the same MHz as the a Celeron, you're going to get about equal performance.

Celerons simply got a bad rep because when they first came out they had no cache at all, which of course made it perform slower, and gave it a bad name.

 

[coreix]

true...

but offer someone a p4 2.4ghz or a celeron 2.4 we know they will go for the p4.
the celerons were never mass marketed by intel the way the p4s were.

 

[ANMMark]

Exactly.

It's amusing to see people so strongly disputing the power of Celerons, without know much about the actual difference. They generally see the name, not the functionality or power.

It stems from people knowing more about Pentium. It's more of a household name. Thus gets qualified as better.

 

[ldcdc]

I never cared much for Intel and I've never bought an Intel CPU. I owned one once - I won it at a tombola.

Now, I don't have anything against Intel. It just so happens that I believe (and I'm not the only one) that AMD offers equally good products at lower prices.

That said, I find it funny that both AMD and Intel offer the stripped down versions of their processors at a fraction of the cost, even though they're virtually identical to their "bigger brothers" (with the exception of some arguably minor, cheap details). It is obviously a marketing tactic. Both AMD and Intel make sure that people will see a bigger value in the higher end solutions that are considerably more expensive.

 

[VAInternational]

That said, I find it funny that both AMD and Intel offer the stripped down versions of their processors at a fraction of the cost, even though they're virtually identical to their "bigger brothers" (with the exception of some arguably minor, cheap details). It is obviously a marketing tactic. Both AMD and Intel make sure that people will see a bigger value in the higher end solutions that are considerably more expensive.

I wouldn't say they're minor details. Cache is a major factor in the performance of a CPU; an old p4-based celeron has 1/4 the L2 cache of a standard P4-C. (128k l 512k). Even the latest and greatest celeron D has only 256k L2 cache. The thing that's able to make up for the celeron's performance is its clockspeed. Intel's 31 stage architecture enables it to go up to very high clockspeeds. But you're right, they are almost identical. P4s and celerons both have exactly the same architecture. And NO, a celeron D at the same speed of a Prescott P4 simply cannot compare. The P4 would smoke it, hands down. Now don't get me wrong, the NEW celeron seems very promising, but it definitely CANNOT compare with the P4.

 

[VAInternational]

Sorry, I might have made a mistake. Were you referring to ALL pentiums?

 

[VAInternational]

Pentium's have larger cache size but only run at half the speed of the cpu. While Celerons are built with half the cache size but run at the full speed of the CPU.

Celerons are cheaper, and there really is not much difference in performance, because of the limits placed on the Pentium chip (running at half speed).

There ARE no limits on current PENTIUMs. Their architecture is just as scalable as a celeron would be. Both have 31 stage pipelines.

 

[ldcdc]

I wouldn't say they're minor details.

OK, fair enough as I wasn't expressing the whole idea. They're certainly not minor in terms of influence on performance. I meant minor details in terms of manufacturing. As you said, it's the same architecture, just that for some they put a smaller cache and name them Celerons. Now, for some applications a Celeron and a Pentium perform similarly, but for others the Pentium will make use of its larger cache and that will make a big difference.

Pentium's have larger cache size but only run at half the speed of the cpu.

OK... I reread your post Mark and this is not what I knew about P4s. Where did you read this?

 

[ANMMark]

OK... I reread your post Mark and this is not what I knew about P4s. Where did you read this?

1. I majored in computer science, while in the US Army (computer communications) and this was standard textbook knowledge.

2. You can easily compare specifications on Intel's site as well, and within that comparison the figures spell themselves out.

It's not that the Pentiums have limitations, but more so the limitations set on them by PC manufactures.

You're right though about both Intel and AMD releasing two standards of the same product. Intel will never come straight out and say that they are pretty much identical, because they want to sell the higher priced item.

Both AMD and Intel make sure that people will see a bigger value in the higher end solutions that are considerably more expensive.

And as you can see it's working.

 

[sina]

I agree with ANMMark Celerons is more ecomic than Pentiums.

 

[sailor]

we will never use celerons because of the issue of cache - it is not a server class chip and has to run faster to do the same thing . also - it is not that much more expensive in the overall cost of the server to go with a real server class chip.

I like the P4 3.0with ht myself.

I think that is the best bang for the buck right now.

 

[ANMMark]

I agree. Celerons are not really for servers. While Celerons "can be" a nice low cost alternative, for general server use, as there really is not much difference. What one lacks it makes up for, with the other.

Where you will run into trouble however, is when the server begins to work twice as hard, when you have clients that use a lot of resources, etc.

I personally have no preference, but Pentium is a safe bet, for the "just in case" scenerio.

 

[esham]

Hi ,

some thing to add...In my experience pentium gives more performance and reliability.But for those going for desktop computers..may choose celeron .

 

[flyingpants]

OH MY... GOD. i have never seen a bunch of people so severely misinformed as yourselves.

first of all, the first poster is ___COMPLETELY WRONG___. i can't stress this enough. it's COMPLETELY FALSE INFORMATION. i'm referring to this:

"Pentium's have larger cache size but only run at half the speed of the cpu."

WHO TOLD YOU THIS??? ARE YOU INSANE???? this is completely wrong, and it's very frightening that noone has pointed this out yet. i can agree that celeron chips have a smaller cache size. as much is obvious. but..

""Pentium's have larger cache size but only run at half the speed of the cpu."

by "half the speed of the CPU", what do you mean exactly? the pentium IS the CPU. how can it run at half the speed of itself? what are you talking about?
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/img/2004/08/value_guide/pentium4_pres.jpg
http://images.google.ca/images?q=cpu+pentium&hl=en
pictures of CPUs for you.

the matter of performance is an entirely different one..

i belong to the hardware enthusiast community, so naturally i do hate celerons, along with all other low-end chips. this does not put me in a position of bias, but rather at an advantage - i look at the benchmark results all the time. celerons are underperforming, overpriced pieces of garbage.

a friend of a friend recently bought a dell celeron (piece of GARBAGE) because he read this forum (this is what inspired me to post), and trusted you, in saying that there's no difference between celeron and pentium. now he has a brand new computer that actually gets OUTPERFORMED by his old 2ghz P4.

don't get me wrong, he's also utterly retarded for trusting you in the first place.

i pity whoever buys a celeron, or a dell for that matter.

 

[ANMMark]

Not only do you have a problem with the comprehension of text, but you really should ask questions before ranting like you have and making yourself look foolish.

A Pentium has a larger cache, and runs at only half of it's available capacity, compared to the Celeron built to run at it's full capacity, but having a quarter - half of the cache size as a Pentium.

Not only can you look this up on the chip's very own website, but as it being a well known fact, I'm sure a lot of people are glad you are simply an enthusiast, and not a hardware professional.

Even though your friend seems to have misunderstood my post as well, in the same manner you have, it's not my fault or problem that your friend took this thread as the Pentium/Celeron Bible without doing their own research, and furthermore had your friend understood the post, and researched the matter, they would have found that my post was not only FACT, but extremely accurate.

In any case, for future reference, read, reread, and if you don't understand, ask, before flying off the handle. The attitude you displayed was ludicrous, and childish, not to mention your misunderstanding of factual information, then ranting as if you knew what you were talking about......well....I'll just leave it at that.

 

[ldcdc]

I'm sorry your friend made a bad choice based on what he read here. That's why it is always good to look for multiple sources of information before making a choice.

I must stress you change your attitude though. Your words can easily be considered offensive by our forum's members. Thank you.

 

[Exon]

i pity whoever buys a celeron, or a dell for that matter.

Well piss...whatever will I do with these two Dell Dimension 8400's each with 4GB of DDR2 RAM, a 3.6GHz HT Pentium 4 with 2MB cache, and an ATI Radeon X300 AGP card? I mean granted, they're not "great" systems, but they'll make do for some basic Terminal Server systems. Please. Pity me.

Oh, forgot to mention the free printers that came with them and the very nice Dell 19" LCD sittin' next to me as well.

While they might not perform "awesome" for Counter-Strike, or Snood, I'm sure that they'll do what they were purchased for well enough. I don't know what you've got against Dell but these systems are very nice Mr. Pants, and we will keep purchasing Dell servers/workstations with or without your approval.

As for the Celeron vs. Pentium debate - Mark answered your questions in his first post. The information he stated was available for you to find on Intel's site, and that the information was fact, not opinion.

 

[ANMMark]

Well piss...whatever will I do with these two Dell Dimension 8400's each with 4GB of DDR2 RAM, a 3.6GHz HT Pentium 4 with 2MB cache, and an ATI Radeon X300 AGP card? I mean granted, they're not "great" systems, but they'll make do for some basic Terminal Server systems. Please. Pity me.

Oh, forgot to mention the free printers that came with them and the very nice Dell 19" LCD sittin' next to me as well.

While they might not perform "awesome" for Counter-Strike, or Snood, I'm sure that they'll do what they were purchased for well enough. I don't know what you've got against Dell but these systems are very nice Mr. Pants, and we will keep purchasing Dell servers/workstations with or without your approval.

Not to mention that Dell is considered to have some of the top of the line business machines (both workstations, and servers) available in the market.

 

[Ilovellamas]

I honestly think one or two people there have taken more offense to FlyingPants than should have been taken. Perhaps his post could be considered over Zealous. At the same time, "some" (I will not state any names) of the replies telling him to calm his manner could be considered quite hypocritical.

Dells bought in bulk for buisness reasons etc are probably very good options. You will have the added advantage of support from a singular company for these systems, as well as a number of others. The issue for me stands at the fact the systems are in many ways over priced, and you could probably build on par machines for less.

The argument can be based on par with choosing Linux for a network over Windows. With Linux you have a cheaper alternative. And more than likely a more stable and secure enviroment. You do however suffer a loss when it comes to user support. A buisness cannot rely on forums.

With windows you can pay out of your (Pardon my language) "arse" for a network. I know quite well how liscenses add up, and how expensive things can become. On the up end you have full support on Microsofts behalf should something go wrong on the software side.

Back to the Pentium vs Celeron debate.

Pentium 4's and Celerons. Though the specifications upon the Intel website seem similar, there are a number of factors you should look at beyond this. All Celerons (To my knowledge thus far?) have both a lower Cache and FSB. Your Pentium 4's (Regardless of cores) have always relied heavily on both those areas. Cutting down on such areas can cause (Depending on what the computer utilising the processor is used for) quite a performance hit. The Celerons also have fewer instructions than the P4's from what I know.

I can agree with a number of points. Celerons are better for regular workstation enviroments. They are cheaper, and have ample speed to partake in the tasks required of them. Simple office applications and internet browsing will notice no difference at all with the use of these CPU's.

There are areas where it is simply impossible to consider a Celeron, however. Hardcore gamers for example. The same goes for those who dabble in video encoding. People who use graphical programs to render large images/videos. Even Servers to an extent. The list could go on for some time.

Though it is arguable that with the higher end Servers, Video encoding, and the rendering of images from demanding 3d programs, that the user would be better suited to a computer with multiple processors (Xeons for example). Even this being the case, budget comes into things. Which I believe leads us back to the start of the discussion?

With all of these things said: The choice of CPU should be chosen depending on what you wish to use the CPU for. It's that simple.

PS: Forgive my sloppy English. I'm a tad tipsy right now =p

 

[webfreak08]

At the same time, "some" (I will not state any names) of the replies telling him to calm his manner could be considered quite hypocritical.

All members must follow the rules: http://www.hostingdiscussion.com/rules.php. The rules state that the purpose of being respectful to other members is so that "participants have the best possible experience." Although we may argue over opinions that other members have, posting messages that could be considered offensive will not be tolerated.